González Galli et al. Evo Edu Outreach (2020) 13:6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00120-0 Evolution: Education and Outreach CURRICULUM AND EDUCATION Open Access The self-regulation of teleological thinking in natural selection learning Leonardo González Galli1, Gastón Peréz2 and Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo3* Abstract Background: Teleology is one of the critical aspects of students’ intuitive concepts about living beings and, specif- cally, their evolution. This cognitive bias imposes a substantial restriction on the process of learning such content. In this work, we rely on epistemological, psychological and pedagogical analyses to substantiate an educational proposal centered on the concepts of epistemological obstacles and metacognitive vigilance. Results: Based on Michael Ruse’s epistemological analysis, according to which teleology in biology persists because the scientifc explanation of adaptation necessarily involves appeal to the metaphor of design, and on research in cognitive psychology, especially in relation to metacognition and self-regulated learning, we argue that the primary educational aim must be to encourage students to develop metacognitive skills to regulate the use of teleological reasoning. We develop our instructional proposal based on the didactic concepts of epistemological obstacles and metacognitive vigilance (consistent with epistemological and psychological analyses). Conclusion: We briefy discuss the instructional implications of our analysis and some possible relationships between our proposal and other lines of research in psychology and science education. Keywords: Teleology, Epistemological obstacle, Metacognitive vigilance, Teaching of evolution Introduction and purpose adopted scientifc theories has been stressed (Kampoura- Despite the consensus on the importance of all citizens kis 2014; Settlage1994; Smith 2010b). Tese conceptions learning evolutionary biology, especially the theory of have proven to be highly resistant to change through natural selection (Kampourakis 2014; Miller-Friedmann education. Analyses of these conceptions have shown et al. 2019; WGTE 1998; Wilson 2007), there is substan- that teleology is a central assumption of intuitive think- tial evidence from the last 40 years from diferent coun- ing about living beings in general, and evolution in par- tries suggesting that most high-school graduates have an ticular (González Galli and Meinardi 2011; Kampourakis insufcient understanding of these topics (Smith 2010a, and Zogza 2008; Kampourakis et al. 2012; Haydock and b). Even worse, this conclusion applies to many teach- Arunan 2013; Lennox and Kampourakis 2013; Sinatra ers and undergraduates as well (Gresch and Martens et al. 2008). Many students assume that in nature, every- 2019; Nehm and Schonfeld 2007; Sickel and Friedrich- thing exists and occurs to achieve a predetermined pur- sen 2013). Among the many factors responsible for these pose (often, that purpose is survival). Terefore, students poor educational results, the inconsistency of intuitive tend to claim, for example, that “bacteria mutate in order conceptions of evolutionary processes with the currently to become resistant to the antibiotic” or that “polar bears became white because they needed to disguise them- *Correspondence: [email protected] selves in the snow.” 3 Unidad Monterrey, Cinvestav, Vía del conocimiento 201, Km. 9.5 In this work, we consider a group of arguments that Carretera nueva al aeropuerto, Parque PIIT, Apodaca, Nuevo León 66600, include the notion of the end, goal or purpose in their México Full list of author information is available at the end of the article structures as teleological arguments (Allen et al. 1998a; © The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat iveco mmons .org/publi cdoma in/ zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. González Galli et al. Evo Edu Outreach (2020) 13:6 Page 2 of 16 McLaughlin 2003). As part of this “family of notions,” heuristic, predictive and explanatory) and that can poten- we also examine the idea of functionality (McLaugh- tially interfere with learning about a scientifc theory lin 2003; Nagel 1961; Sterelny and Grifths 1999). Many (González Galli and Meinardi 2015). As we will discuss forms of reasoning, such as anthropomorphism or need- later, the obstacle can promote thinking about certain based reasoning, are related to teleological assumptions. topics while, at the same time, biasing and limiting think- Although we do not ignore the diferences among these ing about that topics. From this perspective, the main forms of reasoning (for instance, that anthropomorphism learning goal is students’ development of “metacognitive usually includes an intentional assumption that may be vigilance,” which refers to a sophisticated ability for the absent in many cases of need-based reasoning), we sug- regulation of teleological reasoning. Components of this gest that they all involve teleological assumptions. ability, such as knowing what teleology is, recognizing its In diferent studies on the role of students’ teleologi- multiple expressions, and intentionally regulating its use, cal reasoning, it is unequivocally assumed that such rea- are detailed below. soning is incorrect (e.g., Settlage 1994). Additionally, it Te fndings and recommendations of French sci- is suggested that the primary educational aim is for stu- ence education researchers (on whose research we base dents to abandon this form of reasoning. In this sense, our work) are consistent, to a certain extent, with those Settlage (1994), after characterizing explanations pro- derived from important lines of research in the science posed by students as “teleological” and “Lamarckian,” education literature published in English. For example, states, “Although students may possess unscientifc expla- according to Schraw (1998), “metacognitive awareness” nations for the phenomena, a substantial force is required includes three forms of awareness: declarative (refers to to displace their notions.” knowing “about” things), procedural (refers to knowing Eliminating teleology would promote the construc- “how” to do things), and conditional knowledge (refers tion of knowledge that is more similar to scientifc the- to knowing the “why” and “when” aspects of cognition). ories that, presumably, would not be teleological in any We can consider these three components of cognitive sense. In recent years, this strict attitude, which we may awareness analogous to the three components of meta- call “eliminative”, has been partially reviewed, and difer- cognitive vigilance that we have defned below. For their ent authors have acknowledged that teleological think- part, authors in the feld of cognitive psychology (for ing may have heuristic value (Gresch and Martens 2019; example, Gelman and Williams 1998 or Talanquer 2009) Jungwirth 1975a, b; Tamir and Zohar 1991; Zohar and defne “cognitive constraints” as elements of a knowl- Ginossar 1998). Recently, the idea that eliminating tele- edge system that guide and facilitate cognitive processes ological thinking is impossible has been gaining sup- but, at the same time, they restrict and bias them. In this port. However, although teleological thinking cannot be sense, this concept is analogous to that of epistemological eliminated, it must be addressed in one way or another, obstacle. because it causes substantial difculties in understanding We prefer the term epistemological obstacles instead of biology, especially the theory of evolution (Evans 2018). cognitive restrictions because the concept of obstacle is a In reference to the problem being posed (how to deal strictly didactic one. In this sense, the obstacle is defned with the teleological thinking of students in the teach- from the interaction between some style of reasoning, ing of evolution), the purpose of this work is to present and the scientifc theory to be learned (the third compo- the foundations of an educational perspective on stu- nent of the defnition we outlined earlier). In contrast, the dents’ teleological conceptions based on the notion of idea of cognitive constraint is more linked to the experi- epistemological obstacles and metacognitive vigilance. mental cognitive psychology approach. Tus, the obstacle Tese concepts have been developed mainly by French- concept has a more pragmatic and contextually situated speaking science education researchers (Astolf 1997a, nature than that of cognitive constraint. For this reason, b; Astolf and Develay 1989; Peterfalvi 1997). We adopt we will use the terminology of the French authors. this theoretical